But how does that process become cheaper if, instead of a weekly release that covers everything I've done in the last week, I have a once every 3 years release that covers everything I've done, plus a weekly release that covers everything I think you "must take" as an update? Assume in both cases that I'm not following the sort of process that would let you significantly reduce the amount of validation you do per-update.
Similarly, how does it become more expensive if I'm offering a weekly update, but you only take an update every 3 years, as opposed to if I only offer a big update every 3 years, and you take it?
That's the underlying driver behind "let's not pretend we're doing proper LTS engineering, but instead do frequent releases"; your cost of taking the "must take" update weekly, and an additional "big bang" update every 3 years is the same as, or higher than, your cost of taking a smaller combined update weekly.
To actually do better involves imposing a lot of process so that you don't have to do much validation on each "must take" update, which is entirely doable (and is done in regulated scenarios), but isn't something that people generally want to do - it's why people pay for RHEL and similar, because they do follow those processes, which allows you to reduce validation on the "security" fixes RHEL provide.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。